July 2016

Building — Compensation — “In default” — Tenant of arcade on pier continuing to operate despite surveyors’ report highlighting need for repairs to columns supporting arcade and adjacent decking — Decking providing means of access to and from remainder of pier — Local authority having knowledge of report but taking no action — Second surveyors’ report warning failure to repair supporting columns risking overloading of decking in event of emergency evacuation — Local authority exercising statutory power to close pier as dangerous building in response to second report — Tenant’s assignee claiming statutory compensation for loss of business caused by closure — Exclusion from compensation where claimant having itself been ”in default” — Local authority claiming tenant’s continued use of arcade after first report in breach of statutory duties as employer and occupier and amounting to “default” — Whether “default” relating only to matter in relation to which authority exercised power — Building Act 1984 (c 55), ss 78, 106

Supreme Court — Jurisdiction — Application to set aside decision of House of Lords — Judicial review challenging irrationality of ministerial determination not to resettle colonial territory — State party failing to disclose certain relevant documents — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to set aside decisions of House of Lords — Whether failure impugning House of Lords’ decision — Whether decision to be set aside

Supreme Court — Appeal to — Jurisdiction — Parental responsibility order made by court of another European Union member state — Recognition of order by High Court — Council Regulation providing for appeal to judge and further appeal in accordance with notification by each member state — United Kingdom notifying “single further appeal …to …Court of Appeal” — Whether precluding further appeal to Supreme Court — Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, arts 33, 34, 68 — Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40(6)

Employment — Unfair dismissal — Reinstatement — Claimant fingerprint expert having given evidence in high profile trial — Evidence later challenged by other experts leading to acquittal — Employer placing claimant on restricted duties excluding court work owing to prosecuting authorities’ refusal to use claimant in future cases — Claimant carrying out restricted duties for several years but then dismissed — Employment tribunal holding dismissal unfair and ordering reinstatement “as a non court going fingerprint officer” — Reinstatement order quashed by appellate court as amounting to order to employ claimant on amended terms — Whether order alteration of terms of contact or mere recognition of practical limitation on scope of claimant’s work

May 2016

Confidential information — Breach of confidence — Injunction — Claimant granted interim injunction restraining defendant from publishing story in England and Wales concerning claimant’s extra-marital sexual activities — Foreign and Scottish newspapers publishing story identifying claimant — Story also available on internet and social media websites — Defendant applying for injunction to be lifted on grounds that story now in public domain — Whether publication in public interest — Whether Convention right ti freedom of expression taking precedence once is story in public domain — Whether further publication by English media interfering with right to privacy — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 12, Sch 1, Pt 1 arts 8, 10

Financial services — Regulated activities — Collective investment schemes — Related companies not authorised to carry on regulated activities buying agricultural land and offering individual plots for sale to investors on expectation of rise in value should land be reclassified for housing use — Evidence of companies representing they would facilitate change of use and procure purchase of each whole site by developer allowing investors share in profit — Investors signing contacts of sale disclaiming any intent by companies to procure change of use and retaining investors’ freedom to sell or retain own plots as they wished — Financial Conduct Authority alleging company in each case carrying on “arrangements in respect to property” amounting to collective investment scheme in breach of general prohibition — Judge finding intent of parties being that companies negotiate with planning authorities and coordinate sale of each whole site with agreement of all investors — Whether “arrangements in respect to property” in relation to whole site — Whether participants in scheme lacking day-to-day control over management of property — Whether property managed as whole by or on behalf of relevant company — Whether companies operating collective investment scheme — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c 8), ss 19, 235

Fishery — Several fishery — Foreshore — Presumed grant from Crown of private right to take shellfish from foreshore — Dispute between lessee of private fishery and members of the public as to seaward extent of private fishery — Extent of foreshore changing over time as result of shifting sands — Whether doctrine of accretion relevant — Whether private fishery extending to foreshore as it existed — Whether extending to all parts of seabed from time to time exposed at low water — Whether seaward boundary lowest astronomical tide

Revenue — Corporation tax — Profits, computation of — Post-cessation receipt — Taxpayer member of VAT group receiving repayment attributable to overpayment of VAT by other members of group — Taxpayer and other members each having ceased trading at time of repayment — Taxpayer assessed to corporation tax on basis of having received sum “arising from” discontinued trade not otherwise chargeable to tax — Whether charge to tax extending to person other than original trader — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c 1), ss 103, 106

Crime — Homicide — Murder — Joint enterprise — Defendant charged as secondary party to murder — Co-defendant committing act which resulted in victim’s death — Mental element necessary for secondary party to be guilty of murder — Judge directing jury that foresight by secondary party that co-defendant might attack victim with mens rea for murder sufficient — Whether necessary for secondary party himself to have mens rea for murder — Whether to be inferred from foresight of what co-defendant might do

Mental disorder — Admission for treatment — Compulsory detention — Claimant committing double murder on release from compulsory detention in psychiatric hospital — Claimant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment — While serving sentence claimant transferred to high security psychiatric hospital and later to medium security hospital — After completion of tariff period of sentence claimant’s responsible clinician applying for claimant to have unescorted leave in the community so as to assess his suitability for discharge — Application refused by Secretary of State — Claimant seeking judicial review and anonymity order for non disclosure of his identity — High Court dismissing claim and refusing anonymity order — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal against refusal of anonymity order — Whether general presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings relating to patients compulsorily detained in psychiatric hospitals — Whether anonymity order to be made in claimant’s case

European Union — Freedom of movement — Right to reside — Equal treatment — Polish citizen not acquiring right to reside under workers registration scheme and refused income support — Whether national legislation excluding European Union citizens from social assistance benefits despite such benefits being available to nationals of host state in breach of fundamental rights of European Union citizens — Whether European Union legislation precluding national legislation — Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967) — Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC — FEU Treaty, art 21(1)FEU